, 1993.

PATRICIO P. DIAZ, petitioner, vs. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, RTC, Br. 8, Marawi City, SULTAN MACORRO L.
MACUMBAL, SULTAN LINOG M. INDOL, MACABANGKIT LANTO and MOHAMADALI ABEDIN, respondents.

Rex J.M.A. Fernandez for petitioner.

Mangurun B. Batuampar for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; VENUE OF LIBEL CASE WHERE OFFENDED PARTY IS AN PUBLIC
OFFICIAL. — From the provision of Article 360, third paragraph of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
R.A. 4363, it is clear that an offended party who is at the same time a public official can only institute an
action arising from libel in two (2) venues: the place where he holds office, and the place where the
alleged libelous articles were printed and first published.

2. ID.; ID.; IMPROPER VENUE; MUST BE RAISED IN A NOTION TO DISMISS PRIOR TO A RESPONSIVE
PLEADING. — Unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss prior to a
responsive pleading, the venue cannot truly be said to have been improperly laid since, for all practical
intents and purposes, the venue though technically wrong may yet be considered acceptable to the
parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; WAIVED IN CASE AT BAR BY FILING ANSWER. — Petitioner Diaz then, as defendant in
the court below, should have timely challenged the venue laid in Marawi City in a motion to dismiss,
pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 4, of the Rules of Court. Unfortunately, petitioner had already submitted himself
to the jurisdiction of the trial court when he filed his Answer to the Complaint with Counterclaim. His
motion to dismiss was therefore belatedly filed and could no longer deprive the trial court of jurisdiction
to hear and decide the instant civil action for damages. Well-settled is the rule that improper venue may
be waived and such waiver may occur by laches. Sec. 1 of Rule 16 provides that objections to improper
venue must be made in a motion to dismiss before any responsive pleading is filed. Responsive pleadings
are those which seek affirmative relief and set up defenses. Consequently, having already submitted his
person to the jurisdiction of the trial court, petitioner may no longer object to the venue which, although
mandatory in the instant case, is nevertheless waivable. As such, improper venue must be seasonably
raised, otherwise, it may be deemed waived.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; RELATES TO TRIAL AND NOT TO JURISDICTION. — Indeed, the laying of venue is
procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction of the court over the person rather
than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial and not to jurisdiction.